Ideologues and Charlatans: A reader’s parade of climate deniers

I have been attempting a conversation with Father Theo at

http://fathertheo.wordpress.com/2011/06/22/ideologues-and-charlatans-a-reader%e2%80%99s-parade-of-climate-deniers/

I say attempting, because although Father Theo is very keen to rubbish my comments, he only publishes my comments, either partially or not at all.

Obviously to other readers, this is just a tad one sided.

I have duplicated what I can see on his site here and inserted the full text of my unpublished or partially published  comments where appropriate.

Whatever I have said, it most certainly has made Father Theo furious and he frequently forgets to give links or explanations when he make assertions. (mind you he is very good at that anyway).

I did not attempt to contradict all the assertions about the six or seven academics that Father Theo has leveled.  It looks like they come from other blogs largely anyway.

However I thought I would level a factual and slightly ad hominem attack against Al Gore. I suspect this hit home somewhat as Father Theo refused twice to publish it.

Secondly, the academic paper of McKintyre and McKitrick which was used by the NAS to help evaluate Mann’s paper seems a very reasonable way to evaluate Ross McKitrick, who appears on Father Theo’s list.

So read on:)

rogerthesurf

July 25, 2011

3.

Father Theo,

Although there seems to be very little interest in this particular post, I would like to make a

few observations and then post the whole lot on my blog at

http://www.globalwarmingsupporter.wordpress.com where no doubt you will gain a little more attention, of the sort not particularly welcome to yourself no doubt.

The first thing that sticks out a mile, like all people who do not have facts to debate with, instead of dealing with the reasoning of the papers involved and thereby deciding if they say anything valid, you have devoted your post almost entirely on personal attacks of the authors – in the hope no doubt that this will relieve you of actually having to consider a few facts.

OK well first of all I am going to attack personally a few alarmists, people of which you no doubt hold holy and would genuflect if they ever should pass by.

ATTACK ON AL GORE REMOVED BECAUSE IT IS IRRELEVANT AND VIOLATES

MY COMMENT POLICY.

Here is my “attack” which Father Theo could not bring himself to publish. Truth hurts I guess.

“OK well first of all I am going to attack personally a few alarmists, people of which you no doubt hold holy and would genuflect if they ever should pass by.

Lets start with Al Gore. Well believe it or not, Al Gore is not a scientist, but he is a great speaker, just like Hitler was actually. But lets look at Al Gore’s personal life shall we?

Well Al Gore is not using his superior oratorial powers to help you and me from a failing planet, he is using them to enhance his investments. Doing rather well at it too I might say. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/6491195/Al-Gore-could-become-worlds-first-carbon-billionaire.html

 

Al says

that he is simply “putting his money where his mouth is”, well I don’t know about you but I would say that he is putting his mouth where his money is – especially when he actively urges Congress to adopt policies in his favour. In most parts of the world, most people who influence legislators in order to fill their pockets go to gaol for considerable periods of time.

Now Al urges everyone to take on vows of poverty in order to save the world. This link below says it all better than I can. What about his multiple mansions etc.?

http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2011/06/24/the-failure-of-al-gore-part-one/

So Gore is an idiot, but yet I think you will believe in him no matter what.

So there is a factual attack on one of your heroes, is it a personal one? Maybe but he sure asks for it!

Ross McKitrick according to you is a charlatan because presumably he is not a climate scientist but is an economist.

I fear that this shows some ignorance on your part, because an economist at his level needs to be a skilled statistician. And what does Michael Mann rely on for his conclusions? Yep statistics!  In fact a interdisiplinary review of this sort is particularly fair because it is unlikely that the reviewer would have any prejudices one way or the other.

And this charlaton as you describe him, had HIS report reviewed by the NAS. They found fault with Mann’s work but not with McKintyre and McKitrick’s paper.

Here is the National Acadamy of Science’s (NAS) report if you would like to read it?

http://rogerfromnewzealand.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/nas22-06-06.pdf

Do you see where it criticises McKintyre and McKitrick? Nope? I cant see it either.

Do you see where it criticises Mann et al? Well the whole report does just that!

Here is another report led by Dr Edward Wegman on account of the Congress of the USA.

http://rogerfromnewzealand.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/wegman_report.pdf Says about the same thing really. Really worth a read I think. And I could go on!

One could ask quite reasonably after reading these reports “What the hell is the IPCC doing relying on such a disgraced scientist such as Mann and his mates?”

Oh I forgot, McKitrick is employed by big oil? Well Father Theo, if you had any idea about AGW apart from what the IPCC is telling the world, you would know that big oil should be right behind AGW. If the IPCC does succeed in getting countries to ban fossil fuels in order to meet their CO2 emission reductions, exactly what do you think will happen? Well yes the usage of oil would go down but boy would the price of oil go sky high! This is the dream of every business! Low turnover and high margins. (extremely high in this case) This way, oil companies would make far more money than if they supplied the very last drop of the earths resources under the present market. And they will never run out of oil, just get to sell it at huge margins for the foreseeable future.

I think McKitrick is not too biased by his donations from Exxon right? Although I suspect he wont get too much work from them in the future.

Personally I suspect anyone who is green or has connections with the IPCC in this matter.

So shall we label the National Acadamy of Sciences and the US Congress among your charlatons shall we?

Cheers

Roger

http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com

Reply

 

fathertheo

July 30, 2011

If you had actually read the piece you are commenting on, Roger, you’ll know why I don’t take McKitrick seriously. If his science is so bad he can’t tell a radian from a degree, and the magazine he publishes in is so marginal it doesn’t catch the error, you understand why I prefer to get my climate science from actual climate scientists publishing in actual scientific publications.

And again, Roger, please explain to me why it matters what the NAS said or didn’t say about Michael Mann’s 1998 study when they themselves gave him the opportunity to update his study in 2008? Let’s look at the new updated information like real scientists do. All the rest is just a waste of time.

Reply

 

fathertheo

July 30, 2011

I shouldn’t let Rogers misinterpretation of McKintyre and McKitrick just slide, I guess. First, yes, you are correct, Roger. There was an error of statistical methodology in Michael Mann’s 1998 study. When the error is corrected, it makes only very slight differences in the outcome and the “hockey stick” shape is still there.

As for what the NAS says, you have to be careful, Roger, about over-interpreting what was said. You shouldn’t read anything out of context, especially when you don’t even understand the context. Most observers in the scientific publications I read usually regard the NAS study as basically exonerating Michael Mann, while at the same time making honest criticisms about certain statements or issues.

He couldn’t, for instance, on the basis of his study make specific claims about years and decades because the study could not resolve information to the level of specific years or decades. Michael Mann made his statement on the basis that, based on a carefully calculated and scientifically and mathematically justified margin of error, there was a 95% chance that the most recent decade (the 1990s, then) was the warmest in 1000 years. The NAS didn’t say he was wrong. They merely said that since his study wasn’t calibrated as finely as decades, he couldn’t go making specific statements about decades.

And when the NAS review was over, the hockey stick still retained its shape and Michael Mann still retained his stellar reputation in the scientific community — witnessed by the fact that he continues to have his work published in highly prestigious journals like the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, and continues to be respected by his fellow scientists. Michael Mann’s 2008 update of his 1998 study has already been cited by 190 scientists.

Not zero times, like the “scientists” you, Roger, submitted for inspection.

Reply

 

rogerthesurf

July 27, 2011  (note that this comment was made prior to Father Theo’s reply above)

4.

Well father Theo,

Can it be that you are afraid of publishing my comment? Be a man and use your

extraordinary command of facts to give yourself confidence that I am talking BS. And let

your very few readers decide as well.

Of course I have copies of your posts ready to go onto

http://www.globalwarmingsupporter.wordpress.com, where there are actually readers who

will take an interest. Especially in your inability to reply.

Cheers

Roger

http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com

Your comment is awaiting moderation.

 

Reply

fathertheo

July 27, 2011

5.

The reader whose list I discuss here has finally replied–July 25th–33 days after I made my post. Now he’s accusing me of delay and cowardice because 2 days have passed since he sent his letter.

His letter is mostly a rant against Al Gore, who my reader somehow seems to think I rely on for my knowledge of climate science, and an argument against the 1998 version of the “hockey stick” diagram by Michael Mann et al.

Easy reply. I’ve made hundreds of posts here and not once have I relied for my facts on Al Gore. That’s right, zero times.

Nevertheless, talk nasty to Al Gore on your own site, Roger. I’m sure you do all the time.

Try to stick with the science here.

And as for your second point, again you engage in irrelevancies. The National Academy of Sciences, the organization you cite as disproving Michael Mann’s “hockey stick”, published

in 2008 in their highly prestigious Proceedings of the NAS science journal another updated study by Michael Mann, incorporating a wide range of new temperature indicators not available for the 1998 study. The 2008 study had a graph too. Looked just like a hockey stick.

You can find the study here, Roger:

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2008/09/02/0805721105.abstract

Reply

fathertheo

July 28, 2011

6.

Roger, you can dare and double-dare me to publish your moronic rant, but first I have to see evidence that you have actually read what I have written here. You presented these studies to me as a challenge to the standard view of climate change, the view held by 97% of all climate scientists. Since you are arguing a fringe scientific viewpoint, your arguments must be necessarily strong, from legitimate sources. They aren’t. They are weak, from marginal thinkers, published in marginal journals that no one in the science community takes seriously.

You say I didn’t address the science. That is simply a lie, Roger. In the Michaels and McKitrick paper, the authors calculated on the basis of data that was out by a factor of 60. They admit to doing this themselves. If you don’t think a mistake of that order doesn’t undermine the finding of the paper, then you have low scientific standards indeed.

I also presented a challenge to the science of William Kininmonth. He is on record in several places for saying that greenhouse gases emit more energy than they absorb. Another word for substances that emit more energy than they absorb is flubber, Roger.

Do you honestly think I should take anything Billy K, The Absent-Minded Climate Denier, proposes as science seriously? We’re not living in a Disney movie or anything. Oh, and you mention Edward Wegman. I really think you ought to choose your champions better, Roger, ol’ son. I wrote about the scandalous Mr. Wegman here, about his recent outing for academic fraud:

http://fathertheo.wordpress.com/2011/06/05/climate-denier-darling-wegman-outed-foracademic-fraud/

Academic fraud, in case you don’t realize it, is the kind of thing that gets academics kicked off of faculty. It also tends to follow an academic around for the rest of their lives, like a leper ringing his bell down a medieval street crying, “Unclean, unclean.”

Not really convincing. Especially since Wegman isn’t even a scientist, never mind a climate scientist.

Reply

fathertheo

July 28, 2011

7.

One more thing, Roger. The Michaels and McKitrick paper is fundamentally dishonest,arguing as it does that the changing heat signature of the earth is the result of human industrialization, etc. Four-fifths of the heat imbalance measured on earth is contained in the oceans. Perhaps you didn’t, but Michaels would know that.

So what industrialization do you suppose warmed the oceans, the lost civilization of Atlantis?

Also, and this is obvious even to the authors of this paper, most of the warming over land has happened in the far north where the influence of civilization is the lightest. If Michaels and McKitrick were right, the opposite would be true. Most of the warming would be centred where people actually live.

The thesis of the paper is nonsense on the face of it.

Reply

 

fathertheo

July 28, 2011

8.

Oh yes, Roger, I’ve written more about the dubious and dishonest Patrick Michaels here: http://fathertheo.wordpress.com/2011/07/28/two-scientists-go-to-congress/

Reply

 

Roger

July 29, 2011

9.

So why are you ashamed to publish my comment then?

Cheers

Roger

Reply

fathertheo

July 29, 2011

10.

Oh my goodness, a triple dare. How could I possibly resist?

Except by pointing out that you haven’t answered a single one of my objections, Roger.

Because you can’t.

Because I’m right, of course.

Reply

 

fathertheo

July 29, 2011

11.

Oh, for those of my readers who haven’t been following the discussion, my objection to Roger’s point of view is that he is asking me to believe “scientists” who have been caught lying. I honestly believe that is a reason to discount these scientists. Roger doesn’t think so.

You decide.

Reply

fathertheo

July 29, 2011

12.

Roger, I have proved beyond doubt–it has been admitted to by the authors themselves–that one of the papers you submitted to me was wrong by a factor of 60 to 1, yet you haven’t even admitted to that.

What does that say to your objectivity on the matter?

Reply

 

fathertheo

July 30, 2011

13.

Again Roger has submitted his rant about Al Gore. I’m supposed to publish it here because(?) well, I’m not sure why, because nowhere in any argument I have ever made have I relied on Al Gore for anything. I talked about Roger’s sources because he submitted them for my consideration. That makes my discussion of them relevant. Rogers discussion about Al Gore has nothing to do with the discussion presented here and never did.

Roger simply raised the matter of Al Gore as a distraction because I showed his previously submitted list of sources to be weak at best, if not laughably incompetent. He has yet to seriously address a single one of the points I made in the above posting.

Because he can’t, of course.

Well its true I was unable to counter any of Father Theo’s rant because he simply would not publish anything I sent him. Talk about a level playing field and considering facts and argumednts fromn both sides.

Here is my comment mentioned by Father Theo above but was spammed.

Father Theo,

The attack on Al Gore is factual and supported by a number of reliable sources.
In fact it is considerably milder than many of the attacks and sources that you carry out.

I include it here again for publication.

“OK well first of all I am going to attack personally a few alarmists, people of which you no doubt hold holy and would genuflect if they ever should pass by.

Lets start with Al Gore.

Well believe it or not, Al Gore is not a scientist, but he is a great speaker, just like Hitler was actually.  But lets look at Al Gore’s personal life shall we?
Well Al Gore is not using his superior oratorial powers to help you and me from a failing planet, he is using them to enhance his investments. Doing rather well at it too I might say. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/6491195/Al-Gore-could-become-worlds-first-carbon-billionaire.html

Al says that he is simply “putting his money where his mouth is”, well I don’t know about you but I would say that he is putting  his mouth where his money is – especially when he actively urges Congress to adopt policies in his favour.   In most parts of the world, most people who influence legislators in order to fill their pockets go to gaol for considerable periods of time.

 
Now Al urges everyone to take on vows of poverty in order to save the world. This link below says it all better than I can. What about his multiple mansions etc.?
http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2011/06/24/the-failure-of-al-gore-part-one/
So Gore is an idiot, but yet I think you will believe in him no matter what.


So there is a factual attack on one of your heroes, is it a personal one? Maybe but he sure asks for it!”
Of course I will not carry on any more conversation with you unless you find the guts to publish my well sourced comments in their entirety.

My this is going to be such a great story to publish on http://www.globalwarmingsupporter.co.nz though!

Cheers

As you may deduce, this little exchang has kept me busy this weekend so I wont be able to answer any of Father Theo’s contradictions for a little while, although I do wonder who  “Patrick Michaels” and “Michaels and McKitrick” are.

So I will publish, but expect a few updates. Watch this space!

Advertisements

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: